ON A NEW SPECIES OF SCLEROCHEILUS. 415 



Dr J. Percy Moore I have been able to examine the co-type of the latter species. 

 The specimen is not in good condition, and I cannot add much to the account which 

 Dr Moore * has given of the species, but my examination of the specimen leads me 

 to the conclusion that it should not be placed in the genus Sclerocheilus. Dr Moore's 

 specimen differs from Sclerocheilus in the following characters : — (l) the absence of 

 stronger chsetse in the first notopodium ; (2) the absence of neuropodial cirri ; (3) 

 the segments are not four-ringed but three-ringed. It is, of course, possible 

 that neuropodial cirri were originally present and have been lost, but had they 

 been destroyed there would, I think, have been more evidence of damage to the 

 parapodia. Further, Dr Moore states that in the larger and better-preserved type- 

 specimen there are no neuropodial cirri, and it may therefore be concluded that 

 these organs were not present in life. Dr Moore's species seems to be much more 

 nearly related to the genus Oncoscolex than to Sclerocheilus, for it agrees with 

 the former genus in : — (l) the segments from the 5th to about the 30th are tri- 

 annulate, those further back (as far as about the 50th f ) are bi-annulate ; (2) 

 the absence of parapodial cirri ; and (3) the absence of stronger chsetse in the first 

 notopodium. So far as I can see, S. pacificus differs from Oncoscolex dicranochsetus 

 only in the shape of the eyes, J a difference which is probably of little account. 

 Until I have had the opportunity of examining the better-preserved type-specimen, 

 I am not prepared to give a final opinion on the systematic position of >S'. pacificus, 

 but the information at present available indicates that the species should not be 

 referred to the genus Sclerocheilus, and I believe it will prove to belong to the 

 genus Oncoscolex. 



Sclerocheilus c^cus Saint-Joseph. 



Saint-Joseph § recorded the capture of examples of S. csecus, but this species was 

 never described, the only information given about it being contained in the single 

 phrase, " Sclerocheilus csecus, differant sensiblement du Sclerocheilus minutus Gr." 

 S. csecus is therefore a nomen nudum, but there can be little doubt that the 

 specimens referred to were those subsequently described by Saint-Joseph under the 

 name Lipobranchius inter medius.\ 



Observations on a Specimen of " Eumenia oculata!' 



The worm recorded by Dr Ch. Gravier 1T as Eumenia oculata Ehlers appeared to 

 me to be closely related to the Scotia Bay specimen. Dr Gravier has kindly lent 



* Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1909, p. 282. 

 t The specimen has 62 chaetiferous segments. 



| Which are approximately round or oval in 0. dicranochsetus, and irregularly triangular in S. pacificus. 

 § C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, tome ci (1885), p. 1511. 

 || See above, p. 409. 

 IT Deuxieme Exped, A7itarct. Franc. : Anne'lides Polychetes, 1911, p. 112. 



